<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2019 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'Hopefully talking on Wednesday',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<img src="/img/CC_BY-SA_4.0/y.st./weblog/2019/03/17.jpg" alt="Inside the chapel" class="framed-centred-image" width="649" height="480"/>
<section id="religion">
	<h2>Religion</h2>
	<p>
		I wasn&apos;t the only person taking notes during the sermons today.
		I imagine my notes were radically different, but I did see a member of the congregation writing in a notebook as the speakers gave their speeches.
	</p>
	<p>
		A couple things stood out to me today at church.
		First of all, since learning that both Jesus and Elohim are referred to as &quot;the father&quot; in different contexts, I wondered who the sacrament prayer, made to the father, is made to.
		The answer came rather quickly upon hearing the prayer once more.
		It&apos;s always the same prayer made.
		Part of it says &quot;in the name of your son&quot; and calls that son Jesus, so the prayer is obviously to Elohim.
		So in that case, why Elohim?
		Supposedly, Elohim doesn&apos;t act on this world.
		Instead, Jesus does in Elohim&apos;s name.
		So why are they asking Elohim to bless the sacrament in Jesus&apos; name?
		That&apos;s backwards from what they believe goes down.
	</p>
	<p>
		Another thing that struck me was when someone mentioned that Jesus was willing to allow himself to be crucified to appease the wrath of the Jews.
		However, just before, it&apos;d been discussed that he took on the pain, suffering, and sin of the world.
		The amount of pain was he felt would have been immense.
		After that, the pain of crucifiction would have been nothing to him.
		He might have even been almost numb to it.
		I&apos;m not saying it would have been pleasant, and it would have been painful beyond belief.
		He wouldn&apos;t&apos;ve been literally numb, but he likely wouldn&apos;t have been as concerned with it as people make it out like.
		He would have been ... detached.
	</p>
	<p>
		The final thing that stuck out to me was in the lesson.
		Submissiveness, compliance, and obedience were the main things emphasised as positive characteristics today.
		It felt, like always, like religion was simply a tool to extinguish both free thought and questioning of authority.
		If you&apos;re just a drone like that though, you&apos;re going to allow a lot of bad things to happen that you wouldn&apos;t otherwise stand for.
		You might even <strong>*participate*</strong> in such activities if your leaders asked that of you.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="Perl">
	<h2>Perl</h2>
	<p>
		I looked into Perl a bit more, and I&apos;ve now found that it doesn&apos;t provide encapsulation for objects like $a[PHP] does.
		You can of course create an $a[API] and fake the encapsulation, which the manual even recommends doing, but any outside script can still directly modify the object&apos;s data if it chooses.
		What this means is that objects in Perl aren&apos;t new data types the same way they are in $a[PHP].
		You can&apos;t trust the data in an object to be clean or valid, as the values can be modified from the outside at any time.
		That&apos;s definitely a bad thing, though I&apos;ll need more time to decide whether that&apos;s a deal breaker.
		It&apos;d certainly change the way the $a[URI]-handling code in <code>include.d</code> needs to be written and used.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="drudgery">
	<h2>Drudgery</h2>
	<p>
		My mother showed up to take a shower, with seriously bad timing.
		I had some coursework I really needed to get done before work, but because she never shows up while I&apos;m here any more, I had no choice but to stay and talk with her instead of getting things done.
		If she wasn&apos;t normally avoiding me, I could easily just let he shower and tell her I was too busy to talk at the moment and could see her next time.
		Instead, I lost an hour I couldn&apos;t spare.
	</p>
	<p>
		At least it sounds like my mother&apos;s trying to avoid me less, which is good.
		We&apos;re hoping to get together soon, so maybe then we can finally talk.
		Today wasn&apos;t the time for the gender discussion though.
		I&apos;ve taken down the scary medical schedule, so as not to shock her in the mean time.
	</p>
	<p>
		Her schedule is a bit unpredictable, so it might not work out, but we&apos;re going to try to meet on Wednesday.
		I was thinking Thursday or later would be good, as next week (my school&apos;s weeks are from Thursday to Wednesday) should be less hectic than this week, but I can&apos;t guarantee that.
		There almost certainly won&apos;t be a unit assignment, but there very well could be a huge reading assignment and/or a particularly difficult discussion assignment.
		There might even be a bizarre learning journal assignment.
		In one course, the learning journal assignment was always just a report on what we&apos;d learned until the final week, when it was something else, and that could happen this time too.
		So I&apos;ve got to try to fit in the visit this week.
		I&apos;m going to have to stay up late tonight finishing up what can&apos;t be completed any later than tomorrow.
		That&apos;s either going to leave me tired tomorrow or mean I won&apos;t get up with much time before work tomorrow.
		Either way, it won&apos;t be a good day for a planned visit.
		The next day, Tuesday, I&apos;ve got errands.
		That leaves only Wednesday.
	</p>
	<p>
		I&apos;ve got to finish my essay as quickly as I can.
		The reading assignment may need to be put off longer than it should be to make time, but I can push the date a day further if I have to.
		It&apos;ll just mean having a day less to work next week.
		Then again, that&apos;s what I&apos;ve been trying to avoid, so I should get as much of the reading done as I can before then.
	</p>
	<p>
		My discussion post for the day:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			I don&apos;t understand what you&apos;re saying about the notification module.
			First the customer pays and verifies their payment details, <strong>*then*</strong> the customer is made aware through notifications of how the payment process works?
			That doesn&apos;t make any sense, so I&apos;m guessing that&apos;s not what you&apos;re saying.
			Or is the notification module taking into account a payment the customer already made and only giving them notifications based on whether they&apos;ve paid for them?
		</p>
		<p>
			The social module seems useful, depending on which networks it supports.
			Some networks are obviously more useable than others, so the wider the range of networks it supports, the better.
			I&apos;d love to see some of the federated social networks supported, such as $a[GNU] Social, Diaspora*, and Pump.IO.
			It&apos;d especially be nice to see that, given that these networks and Joomla! are all free software, and could benefit from such integrated use.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
</section>
END
);
